I would NEVER pay a fee to sell my images - esp the agency is already getting the lions share of royaltys. Thats our generous fee they pocket every time they sell our image.

Besides , how would you ever be able to moniter the 'fairness' of the system in display/promoting YOUR images? You have no say, no control, and no way to know how that is taking place. Fogettaboutit.

As was mentioned, they already have Offset. They should curate images from regular contributers into offset, that fit the criteria. Im sure many contributers would have at least a few images that could make it into the premium collection - and how would they be if that happened? They would probably be spurred on to submitiing more and better content.

Absolutely agree on 'should' and the beneficial effect it would have on chosen contributors, but they haven't yet and probably never will.

Say, you take page #1 popular of any major search category at SS and select 10 possibles for 'Select/Offset'. Those images are already earning good money for SS and the customers keep coming back for more. Place them with Offset and you have to remove them from the SS site because they become exclusive to Offset...but you've already allowed usage in perpetuity on those popular images that have already sold. Can't be done IMHO.

The only way you can provide an option for a SS contributor to place some work in Offset is by making a selection of new work before it gets into the SS regular archive/approach the contributor and ask if they would be prepared to submit only a certain type of work to Offset. That would require a curator looking at all the new work coming into SS of which a percentage is 800K/week that gets accepted. That's also tough to do.

However, it would be nice if they allowed contributors to nominate their best work for Offset.

Premier Select and Offset are based on someone else's opinion of whether your image is suitable for that collection or customer. Everything is effectively curated. My suggestion was that it's the contributor that decides which new work to confront the 'retail' customers with. Premier Select is for the big boyz but the largest chunk of SS earnings come from retail. They have to wade through the 800K new images that are accepted every week.....no help for them. I'd be prepared to throw $100/year at the wall to see whether any sticks. Besides, it's promotion and a tax deductible expense.

Here's a suggestion for SS to improve things both for the better contributor and for its customers.

Set up a part of the Shutterstock site that's called 'Premium New/ Member Select' or something.All Shutterstock contributors are invited to contribute a of 10 images (passed by Shutterstock review in their normal review procedure) which the contributor considers their best images or their best new images. Images may be replaced at any time for other images but a contributor can never have more than 10 images in the selection ever. To encourage contributors to put some thought into the selection, each image costs them a payment of $10/year..max $100/year!Really, it's a sort of pimp your pics site within Shutterstock.Shutterstock runs that part of the site like it's a part of the whole and good-selling pics there are also counted in their algorithms for the normal site whereby best-selling HCV images rise to the first page of the normal popular search.For buyers, they have to sort through a fraction of the 'new' images admitted to the full SS site and for this time-saving privilege, they 'pay' with 2 subs instead of one (if the image is downloaded from that part of the site). The contributor receives 2 subs payments (at their level) for any downloaded subs from that site. ODDs, SODs and ELs remain the same.

If/when an image is successful on the 'Select' site and rises to the first page of the search on the full SS site, it may be time to replace that image on the 'select' site with another but you're free to do that at any time. If, after say a month, an image is not sold on 'select', you can choose to replace it with another...entirely free choice and up to you!

If the general contributor choice for 'select' is poor, then the site will fail because the customer will see no point in using it but if the better contributors place their better work in the selection, there's a good chance that it will enhance SS's reputation and be the go to site especially for customers looking for new and maybe innovative images that would otherwise get buried at the full site.

Stock options are very nice especially when there's lots of 'em and they're free but they don't give you as contributor the power to change anything about the way the company is run (because YOU don't get many) nor do they enable you to get executive decisions changed in the event that you feel the decisions are not in your contributor interest. All you can do is cash 'em when the price is high or curse yourself for hanging on to them when the price drops below acquisition price.

I doubt that 'Option 2' is a real option for SS and I'm dubious about whether SS is still regarded as 'middle market+' compared to FT/Adobe. SS has relaxed its standards to entry by contributors and is now adding around 800K images per week. Much of that new content, whilst sharp with correct white balance, is not HCV and will probably never sell. That huge volume buries the better producers' new work and makes a search for the good stuff a most frustrating experience for potential buyers, causing them to look elsewhere. This also frustrates the better contributors whose feeling is that it's pointless to create good new work because it's never seen, never sells and why should I keep adding to the collection. But this is all JMHO.

I wonder where most of the 28% of the higher-priced enterprise market share is coming from. Is that SS + Offset or is it mostly SS alone? In that marketplace they also have competition from Stocksy (with lower prices compared to Offset).

As Nikovsk said, currency conversions with Paypal from Eur to dollar and vice versa cost around you 3.5%. That's how they make their money. When I convert, usually USD to euro, if I don't need the money I leave it on Paypal and try to wait for a better rate on the foreign exchange markets (forex).

I usually try to wait until the EUR:USD on forex is below 1.10, then Paypal rate is ~ 1.14. If you're converting from EUR to USD, rates have been much better @ $1.40/EUR back in early 2014 but have come down a lot since then.

I don't believe that we are helpless to stop the greed for a moment. It is unfortunate that as a group we chose and continue to choose to believe that we do not deserve basic respect and compensation; from a group that has become extremely wealthy because of our financial resources, talent and hard work.

How far down are we willing to go, before we say enough is enough?

And how have we shown in the past that our voices matter? DPC? 6 million less images than FT...they really don't care. It's not important to them....but yes I'm opted out of DPC but only for the reason that I think I'm protecting my ODDs and SODs at SS. Maybe it's worked too because my SS income is still pretty stable.Having reached the top tier of SS recently, I'm likely biased in not opting out of ELs. At best, I'll get $29 for an EL and at worst $20. As previously stated, at FT I ask 70 credits for an EL of which I get 25% but almost never sell any EL's there, so that's 25% of nowt. I note that one of our erstwhile members here (since withdrawn) who turned emerald FT-yahoo a year or so ago has all his (excellent) images there priced at 30 credits for an EL. So I reckon that he's happy with $10 for every EL sold there which I wouldn't be. I'll take the SS price for an EL for the time being.

I do agree with Jo Ann that SS is telling us fibs when they say they're lowering the EL price to us to remain competitive whilst keeping the price for ELs the same to the customer..that is downright deceitful.

I won't be opting out of EL's for the simple reason that in the 3 years I've been at SS, I've had 31 EL's @$28 and in the 7 years I've been at FT (with 15% more images), I've had 5 EL's. Even pricing my EL's at 70 credits (instead of my max 100 credits) of which I get 25% doesn't get them sold at FT. I'll take 'em when I can get 'em at SS.

Just curious, at what point do you think will be too low of a payout for you not to opt out? It was easy for me to opt out of this deal as I thought $28 was a bit lower than what i should be getting compensated for someone else to reproduce/print my content for their own financial benefit. It should be at minimum 50% but then thats never gonna happen. I probably average 2 EL a month here and opting out will save me the grief of thinking about SS bigger take.

On another note, this move by shutterstock is making it more easier not to submit to this agency as i see the clear direction it is going forward with this move.

Ill take em when i can get em sounds a lot like thank you may i have another to me.

Either I quit microstock altogether or I take what's on offer. I have no power as an invidual to divert corporations from their corporate interests....and that's always been, more for them and less for me. If, at some point, the revenue stream from ms falls below a level that I consider not worth the effort, then I'll just stop providing them with content...in the full knowledge that there's thousands of other suckers prepared to do what I wasn't.

At present, the ms revenue stream is just one of a few others but I'm content with the present income when balanced with the effort invested. When the balance becomes inverted, I'll just have to find some other way to restore it to positive.

I won't be opting out of EL's for the simple reason that in the 3 years I've been at SS, I've had 31 EL's @$28 and in the 7 years I've been at FT (with 15% more images), I've had 5 EL's. Even pricing my EL's at 70 credits (instead of my max 100 credits) of which I get 25% doesn't get them sold at FT. I'll take 'em when I can get 'em at SS.

Yep. It's been that way for a couple of years now. I had a shot of a Canadian Maple Leaf gold coin on SS 3 years ago. Shortly after it was accepted, I was notified that it was being removed from the collection because Bank of Canada had decided that all their coins/notes were copyright. No queen's head showing on the coin BTW.

Maybe it is not a big deal, but today I reach 0,38 rank at SS.My first upload there, was in end of December 2012.I'm pretty happy this morning,

Congrats and really excellent work. I just got there ($0.38) myself but started 6 months before you with ~100 more images. Just goes to show that with your quality work, you don't need a massive port to make $300-$400/month at SS.

I'm in love with imagery, storytelling & admittedly...Marijuana. I want to learn all about this plant and the meaning(s) attached to it. I will travel across the country researching and photographing the topic of American Marijuana. My initial goal is to build a facebook community. To learn and plan. I love your images and stories! Anything 'American Marijuana.' Please keep sharing.

Thank you all so much. Nathan"

No doubt Nathan and SS see the future of weed becoming huge; see themselves as getting 'in' on the ground floor....maybe they even met one another at the University of Oaksterdam.

If you check your total sales numbers for the day, you'll see that these low-value 'compensation' SODs are not added to your number total but only to your money total (which is logical as the sale was already made some days ago).

All sorts of reasons for a stock to go down and some will be unrelated to the performance of the company.If it goes down 'sufficiently' it could be bought up on the cheap by some investment club who will then start giving our images away free so that they can collect all sorts of data from the users and transform the company into a data provider which should double their stock market valuation before they then sell it on to some other sucker. Sorry, I'm a terrible cynic when it comes to stocks, valuations and conniving by market participants to get what they want.

It was down for about an Hour and the spam is back, Big time. could be looking for Paypal acc's or LoginS??

If it were the the buyers part of the site, you can bet it would have been fixed in no time. We're just contributors exchanging messages of no importance to the main business of making the folding greenery.